NoFeeBoards.com!

No Fees! No Ads! No Spam!

Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index

Anybody have a copy of Terhorst's "cashing in"?
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index » FIRE Board
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
wanderer
*** Veteran


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 363
Location: anytown, usa

PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2003 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

goddammit this board is exciting! Laughing(is there a head shaking gif?)

I agree with essentially all ben just wrote. JWR's calculations are valuable but "prove" less than he asserts. They also relate to a world of which I am not a part - not for a long time do I expect to see a SWR 'mean' of 7%-8%. I putter along in a 1.6%-4% world. Wink

I also agree with raddr. I think hocus is confusing this place with teh other joint.

btw, on a much more important note, did anybody notice that David slew Goliath, again, last night in Yanqui Stadium?



_________________
regards,

wanderer

The field has eyes / the wood has ears / I will see / be silent and hear
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus
Moderator


Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That you are still an occaisional topic of conversation over there is true but not for the self-important reasons that you are imagining.

Do you think that intercst would accept an invitation to appear at the SWR board as our second Special Event guest?


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
[KenM]
*** Veteran


Joined: 04 Mar 2003
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regrettably, yet again I feel I have no alternative but to post on this issue. I was not involved in any previous "history" concerning hocus at TMF and I like to think that I have matured into a rational, tolerant person who can give anyone the benefit of the doubt on any issue.

That said, after 6 months as a member of NFB, in my opinion the only person I have found consistently playing obstructive, destructive, disruptive word games and continually mis-representing the words of other members in order to try to win cheap debating points --- is hocus. In my opinion, the only person consistently not prepared to agree-to-disagree in a friendly manner --- is hocus. In my opinion, the only person consistently not prepared to withdraw or amend statements that many knowledgable members have pointed out may not be entirely correct --- is hocus. In my opinion, the only person involved in discussions on SWRs who has not made a constructive contribution or helpful comment in the last 6 months --- is hocus.

The dangerous thing about hocus's behaviour is that it undoubtedly dissuades guests from becoming members of NFB and it does a disservice to rational debate on SWRs which would benefit all aspiring FIREEs. I therefore fully support ataloss's attempts to put on record and to draw attention to such behaviour. It is only then that we can have a balanced and rational representation of the situation ... unfortunately it appears to be a thankless and never-ending task.

hocus quote Sat Oct 25
Quote:
At some point we need to determine as a community whether I am in fact an informed and honest community member, as I say I am, or an ant at a picnic, as Ataloss says I am. We don't need to reach a consensus on that today.

Why not, hocus??? Why don't you ask other members of NFB for their blunt and honest opinion on whether you are an "informed and honest" member?



_________________
KenM
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JWR1945
***** Legend


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 1697
Location: Crestview, Florida

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

in my opinion [hocus is] the only person I have found consistently playing obstructive, destructive, disruptive word games and continually mis-representing the words of other members in order to try to win cheap debating points...

Start paying very close attention to the indirect manner in which ataloss presents his opinions. He levies his attacks with seemingly innocuous statements. You can never take anything that he says at face value.

Shouldn't hocus defend himself when attacked?

Remember also that it is ataloss who keeps making hocus the issue. It is ataloss who will not let well enough alone.

Pay very close attention. ES stated that he does not see how ataloss indirectly called me a liar. I believe ES. I think that his understanding is typical. But look very closely about what ataloss has said, how he has chosen his words. Look at how strongly he conveys the impression that I must be lying.

No, it is not hocus who consistently play[s] obstructive, destructive, disruptive word games and continually mis-representing the words of other members in order to try to win cheap debating points...

Pay close attention. Pay very close attention.

Have fun.

John R.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus
Moderator


Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hocus: At some point we need to determine as a community whether I am in fact an informed and honest community member, as I say I am, or an ant at a picnic, as Ataloss says I am. We don't need to reach a consensus on that today.

KenM: Why not, hocus??? Why don't you ask other members of NFB for their blunt and honest opinion on whether you are an "informed and honest" member?

The reason why we don't need to do it today is because, as important as our work on SWRs is, it is more important that we get it done right than that we get it done fast. My sense is that the board needs a rest from this so that it can turn to it with a fresh perspective at some later date. But I usuually take my cues as to how to proceed from the FIRE community ("the Wave"). You are a part of the Wave, KenM, and you are expressing a desire to move forward a bit now, so I will do what I can to accomodate you consisent with my desire to also do what I can to accomodate those community members who prefer that we not go forward too many steps all at once.

The reason why I do not ask for this board's opinion of whether I am an informed and honest poster on SWRs is that this board's opinion of that question is of little consequence. The SWR is a data-based construct. That means that it is data, not opinion, that decides who is right and who is wrong on this matter. You could win a vote 15-2 that I am an ant at a picnic, and it wouldn't mean a thing. I studied the SWR matter in depth eight years ago and I proved to myself that the claims that I have put forward are conceptually correct. JWR1945 has more recently analyzed the numbers in some depth and he has stated that "the Great SWR Debate is over and hocus has won. The technical support for this assertion is rock solid."

The support for my claims that is to be found in the data is never going to change, KenM. The historical data has all been recorded in a book and the book has been closed. We can extend the word games conducted here for 10 years and it will not change what the data says. The data will always say that intercst got the number wrong by a country mile. It will always say that the insight that I put forward on May 13, 2002, was a valuable and true one. It will always say that my detractors wasted the FIRE community's time with their word game posts and ridicule posts, that we should have been discussing the significance of that powerful insight from the first day and that the community has lost millions of dollars of accumulated capital because of the tangles it has gotten itself into in pretending either that changes in valuation do not affect SWRs (the REHP board dogma) or that what the data says does not matter in determining the SWR (the FIRE board dogma).

It may be that there are 15 hocus detractors on this board and 2 hocus supporters. If that is so, then there are 15 members of this board community who are either uninformed about how SWRs are determined or are responding to the poll question in a dishonest manner. The ones who are responding in a dishonest manner I am not concerned about; they are not Information Seekers, so I have no responsibilities in regard to them. The ones who are misinformed I do have a responsibility for. It is my job to try to inform them of the realities before the false information re SWRs that has been posted in the FIRE community ever since the day that intercst published his study causes them further losses of capital.

We all have a responibility to those misinformed posters. If they could have saved their FIRE plans by knowing the import of what I said in my May 13, 2002, post, but failed to come to understand it because there were people on the REHP board or this board playing games with words, then a serious injustice has been done to them. All of us will have to answer to them if (when?) that day comes. I have tried as hard as any human being possibly could be expected to try to overcome the effect of the word game and ridicule posts. I have made huge personal sacrifices in doing so. I saved large amounts of money for nine years so that I would be free to write a book when I had saved enough, and I have now put completion of that project off for over a year so that I could respond to community questions on this matter. If (when?) the day comes when we see serious financial losses result from the word games that were played here and at the Motley Fool board, I want to have a record to point to showing that I tried as hard as I could possibly try; someone is going to need to rebuild this movement from the ground up on that day and it looks like the Wave has seen fit to assign me the task. So I will continue to do what I am able to do. Anything beyond that is not in my power, so I try not to worry about it too much. I do what I am able to do to set this right, and I leave it to others to do what they elect to do.

If you ever have an interest in hearing the straight story re SWRs, without any of the word game and ridicule posts that have made it impossible to make sense of the question at this board, let me know, KenM, and I will have you as a Special Guest at the SWR board. I don't have the sense you think of yourself as an "expert" on this question, but we could have you as a sort of "everyman" poster, someone with some interest in the question who has been trying but failing to make sense of it given the way that the debate has been conducted here. Me and JWR1945 will spend two hours (or longer, if you like) going through every possible question you have until you are satisifed that you understand all the tricks that defenders of the conventional methodology have been playing on you.

If there is any other poster who would like to serve as an "everyman" Special Event guest, let me know, and I will handle the preparations. There is great power in understanding the realities of the SWR concept. The data-based SWR is the most valuable investing tool that I have ever discovered. Participating in a Special Event discussion would not only help you obtain huge financial benefits for yourself, it would help other community members who have tried to come to an understanding of this issue but who have been blocked in their efforts to do so. I hope that some community members will give it consideration, and that we will be able to set something up over at the other board that will permit for some constructive discussion of the SWR issue.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
raddr
*** Veteran


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 265

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 3:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JWR1945 wrote:
Start paying very close attention to the indirect manner in which ataloss presents his opinions. He levies his attacks with seemingly innocuous statements. You can never take anything that he says at face value.


and
Quote:
ataloss indirectly called me a liar, which I do not appreciate. I will not waste my time responding since the truth is obvious.


John,

In my opinion ataloss is a rock solid contributor here and doesn't play word games. These are pretty serious allegations which I disagree with. Can you cite specific examples of ataloss calling you a liar, directly or indirectly?


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
[KenM]
*** Veteran


Joined: 04 Mar 2003
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 3:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jwr
Quote:
No, it is not hocus who consistently play[s] obstructive, destructive, disruptive word games and continually mis-representing the words of other members in order to try to win cheap debating points...

Regrettably I was personally on the receiving end of hocus's anti-social behaviour - which is summarised in my post dated Wed Jul 23 as follows
Quote:
hocus wrote:

I engaged in no misrepresentation whatsever (quote).


If you want to play pathetic, childish word games you can play them on your own. If I responded in a manner that your games deserve then ES wouldn't like it (and I have no problems with that, ES )


Goodbye



_________________
KenM
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
[KenM]
*** Veteran


Joined: 04 Mar 2003
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 4:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hocus
Unlike you, I have actually read all the studies I can find on SWRs, "invalid" or not. In the past, jwr very kindly and patiently helped me understand more. Similarly gummy also spent a lot of time and effort explaining things further. My views on SWRs can be summarised in my post dated Tue June 3
Quote:
...but I could never buy in to any study or any analysis with complete certainty for the next 30 years . To me, and to be blunt, that's an absurd proposition unless the SWR was very, very conservative and it amazes me that anyone would consider that
jwr's response to that post was (and I try to quote this as humbly as possible Smile)
Quote:
I submit this statement as proof positive of my assertion that KenM is light years ahead of many. IMHO, he is light years ahead of most.

Probably jwr has changed his opinion of me Smile but I doubt I'll be taking you up on your offer .......
Quote:
let me know, KenM, and I will have you as a Special Guest at the SWR board. I don't have the sense you think of yourself as an "expert" on this question, but we could have you as a sort of "everyman" poster, someone with some interest in the question who has been trying but failing to make sense of it given the way that the debate has been conducted here.
........ I definitely don't consider myself an "expert" but through the valuable and patient assistance of other members I've managed to make very good sense of SWR issues at the FIRE board and I would consider it insulting if you are alleging that jwr, gummy, radrr, etc have conducted the debate on SWRs at this board in anything other than a rational, friendly and unbiased manner.



_________________
KenM
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JWR1945
***** Legend


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 1697
Location: Crestview, Florida

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 5:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

raddr:
Quote:
Can you cite specific examples of ataloss calling you a liar, directly or indirectly?


I stated on this thread:
Quote:
hocus and I exchanged emails while he was developing the Coin Toss post. He sent me drafts for comments (not for editing, not for rewrites).

I know this as a fact: hocus put a lot of time and effort into that post.

It is an outstanding post because he did an outstanding job.

http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=12924#12924

ataloss
Quote:

3500 word post intended as "amplification" of one by mhtyler 24 hours earlier- you guys were busy....

http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=12928#12928

In my post:
Quote:
ataloss indirectly called me a liar, which I do not appreciate. I will not waste my time responding since the truth is obvious. And, yes, I stand by my previous words.

http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=12933#12933

Later, ataloss continued:
Quote:

Although I don't see any plagiarism I am not sure what to make of hocus and jwr's posts. How hard hocus worked on the post and who collaborated isn't particularly relevant to the plagiarism issue. Since hocus doesn't want to move the post here, people don't know the context. The post was put up 24 hours after the mhtyler post it cites. Maybe hocus and jwr worked hard on it during that time period maybe they didn't.

http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=12942#12942

That's enough.

Have fun.

John R.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus
Moderator


Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 6:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would consider it insulting if you are alleging that jwr, gummy, radrr, etc have conducted the debate on SWRs at this board in anything other than a rational, friendly and unbiased manner.

I do not believe that there is any one individual who is responsible for the board's problems. The board is comprised of a community of posters. Each post has some influence, either positive or negative, and the combination of the effects of all the posts defines the state of the board at any one particular point in time.
Boards are living things, acquiring their life from the community members who post to them. But they are separate living things from any of the posters.because no board reflects perfectly the views of any one poster. A board "statement" is always a joint statement not in precise accord with the statement of any of the posters who contributed to it.

Thanks for giving consideration to the idea of serving as a guest for a Special Event discussion at the SWR board, KenM.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JWR1945
***** Legend


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 1697
Location: Crestview, Florida

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 6:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KenM:
Quote:
jwr's response to that post was (and I try to quote this as humbly as possible Smile)
Quote:
I submit this statement as proof positive of my assertion that KenM is light years ahead of many. IMHO, he is light years ahead of most.


I see no reason to alter that statement.

Have fun.

John R.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
raddr
*** Veteran


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 265

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 7:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

John,

Presented in context here is the last quote in your post:
Quote:
Maybe hocus and jwr worked hard on it during that time period maybe they didn't. I don't know, I wasn't there. Although jwr makes a lot of sense when he isn't defending hocus, I think he has been a bit incredible at times in his defensive posts. I won't go into those instances at present.


I just don't see where ataloss calls you a liar. He simply states that he wasn't there and can't make a judgement on the plagiarism question. BTW, along with Ataloss I would also question how much of hocus' "Coin Toss" post was original thinking given its similarity to the Terhorst "Coin Toss" book discussion which clearly preceded hocus' post. I don't know whether or not this qualifies for plagiarism but regretably I do think less of hocus' post now that I know that he did not originate the idea.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
hocus
Moderator


Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I do think less of hocus' post now that I know that he did not originate the idea.

What is "the idea" of the post, in your view, raddr?


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BenSolar
*** Veteran


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 242
Location: Western NC

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 11:20 am    Post subject: No plagiarism that I can see, different scenarios. Reply with quote

As I previously posted at TMF:

[A TMF poster wrote about reading the Terhorst's book]
Quote:
"Cashing in on the American Dream" ... "the Coin Toss Law" ...
Let's just say the exact wording is replicated in the following post:

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=17389587


To be fair, it should be noted that the scenarios by the Terhorts and by hocus described are far from exactly the same.

FMO provided an excerpt of the the Terhort's book here: http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=12912#12912
Quote:
If it comes up tails, I pay you a dollar. If it comes up heads, you pay me a dollar. Sure, you say. Why not? We play a couple of times. Then I ask if you want to play for $10. Of course. We continue to play. Then I offer to play for, say, $500,000, your entire net worth. You laugh. It's ridiculous.


The authors go on to use that example to explain the diminishing utility of more and more money.

Hocus's post is here: http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=17389587&sort=whole

In it he considers a scenario where:
Quote:
A man comes to you with an "investing" proposition. He says that he will ask you to guess whether a coin will come up heads or tails. If your guess is correct, he will pay you $200,000. To play, you must agree that, if your guess is incorrect, you will pay him $100,000.
...
Now, let's consider another change. You are offered the same proposition as above, but with a condition attached. In order to take the gamble, you must be willing to take it ten times in a row.


So in his example you have a very large positive expectation, but also the chance of losing most of your retirement stash, which is perhaps more like the stock market than the Terhorst's even gamble.

I will further note that neither the Terhorst's nor hocus can claim they were first with this sort of coin toss mental exercise. In this post ( http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=11339#11339 ) therealchips traces the problem and illustration back some 300 years:
Quote:
This is the famous St. Petersburg Paradox, much discussed and resolved the better part of three hundred years ago. Here is another description of the game, maybe better written:

"The expected utility hypothesis stems from Daniel Bernoulli's (1738) solution to the famous St. Petersburg Paradox posed in 1713 by his cousin Nicholas Bernoulli (it is common to note that Gabriel Cramer, another Swiss mathematician, also provided effectively the same solution ten years before Bernoulli). The Paradox challenges the old idea that people value random ventures according to its expected return. The Paradox posed the following situation: a fair coin will be tossed until a head appears; if the first head appears on the nth toss, then the payoff is 2n ducats. How much should one pay to play this game? The paradox, of course, is that the expected return is infinite. . .Yet while the expected payoff is infinite, one would not suppose, at least intuitively, that real-world people would be willing to pay an infinite amount of money to play this!"


I see no reason to believe that hocus' post isn't original. He poses the issue in a way significantly different than the Terhorsts (or Bernoulli for that matter). It is certainly far removed from plagiarism. That said, this brouha does go to illustrate the old truism 'there's nothing new under the sun'. Which I don't believe, by the way. Wink



_________________
"Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; remember that what you now have was once among the things only hoped for." - Epicurus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 559

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi Bensolar, I would say that at least there isn't much new under the sun. Plagarism, in my view, requires the use of exactly the same words. Recycling ideas is different (and probably the basis of many academic careers)



_________________
Have fun.

Ataloss
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BenSolar
*** Veteran


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 242
Location: Western NC

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ataloss wrote:
hi Bensolar, I would say that at least there isn't much new under the sun. Plagarism, in my view, requires the use of exactly the same words. Recycling ideas is different (and probably the basis of many academic careers)


This is true. Hocus's post strikes me as a touch of recycling, but with some significant twists that make it original work (if not something completely utterly new under the sun Smile), at least compared to the Terhorsts 'coin toss law'. Of course if you are talking about gambling/probabilities, then a 'fair coin toss' is the simplist way to talk about it because it is a flat 50/50 that everyone can grasp. It is the foundation for countless expositions on gambling/probabilites/etc... . So if hocus is to be faulted for using it, then so should hundreds, if not thousands, of other writers.



_________________
"Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; remember that what you now have was once among the things only hoped for." - Epicurus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index » FIRE Board All times are GMT - 9 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
Designed for Trushkin.net | Styles Database